The
following Fact Sheet has been prepared by the South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia
Society (SAVES). For
further information visit their website athttp://www.saves.asn.au

South Australian
Voluntary Euthanasia Society

SAVES Fact
Sheet No.21

Voluntary Euthanasia in Australia and the Netherlands

Most
of what is known about the practice of voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands
is based on two government sponsored nationwide studies carried out there
in 1990 and 1995 (See Fact Sheet 4 and Fact
Sheet 17).

A
comparable study was carried out in Australia with the support of a grant
from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Kuhse H, Singer P,
Baume P, Clark M, Rickard M. End-of-life decisions in Australian medical
practice. Med J Aust 1997; 166: 191-6).

For
the first time it is possible to make a comparision of end-of-life medical
practice in two countries, one of which allows the practice of voluntary
euthansia in certain circumstances and one which does not. (The brief period
from July 96 to March 97 during which voluntary euthanasia was legal in
the Northern Territory, see Fact Sheet 19,
came after the data gathering period.)

The
two countries have similar populations, 18 million in Australia and 15.3
million in the Netherlands, and similar annual death rates, 7.1 and 8.7
per thousand respectively.

The
following comparisons of percentage of all deaths are made:

Australia

Netherlands

Netherlands

1995/6

1990

1995

Voluntary
Euthanasia

1.7%

1.7%

2.4%

Physician
Assisted Suicide

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

Ending
life without explicit request

3.5%

0.8%

0.7%

prolonging
treatment

28.6%

17.9%

20.2%

Alleviation
of pain in sufficient
dosage to be likely to hasten death

30.9%

18.8%

19.1%

All
of these

64.8%

39.4%

42.6%

The
study revealed that in 30% of all Australian deaths, a medical end-of-life
decision was made with the explicit intention of ending the patient's life.
Only 4% were in response to a direct request from the patient. The authors
conclude that:

"Australian
law has not prevented doctors from practising euthanasia or making medical
end-of-life decisions explicitly intended to hasten death without the patient's
request."

Whatever
criticisms of the study are made, or interpretations offered, it is clear
that the situation in Australia is less satisfactory than in the Netherlands,
where there is more emphasis on the careful regulation and monitoring of
medical end-of-life decision-making. The case is strengthened for law reform
to permit voluntary euthanasia under appropriate safeguards.